NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw&feature=email

"Little tiny?"

Are you fraking kidding me? Talk about somebody with a severe problem grasping reality...

Something like 65% of Americans oppose pork and he says this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw&feature=email

"Little tiny?"

Are you fraking kidding me? Talk about somebody with a severe problem grasping reality...

Something like 65% of Americans oppose pork and he says this?

I will reiterate the argument posited by Obama and Pelosi.

"I won".

This means that no matter what they propose, they already believe that regardless of what any people in the US may think now, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will brook no argument (or even offer any justification other than "I won".

So sit back and enjoy.

I will reiterate the argument posited by Obama and Pelosi.

"I won".

You have no real argument, so you can only troll with this laughable kind of bullshit. But what else is new?

You have no real argument, so you can only troll with this laughable kind of bullshit. But what else is new?

It's the argument that Obama gave directly to Republicans when he met with them over the stimulus package.

I will reiterate the argument posited by Obama and Pelosi.

"I won".

This means that no matter what they propose, they already believe that regardless of what any people in the US may think now, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will brook no argument (or even offer any justification other than "I won".

So sit back and enjoy.

You know, he said a little bit more than that. I believe he also said, 'Neener Neener'. :p

It's the argument that Obama gave directly to Republicans when he met with them over the stimulus package.

No, it isn't. You are deliberately misrepresenting for the sake of trolling.

I guess you just need extra attention today.

No, it isn't. You are deliberately misrepresenting for the sake of trolling.

God knows he hasn't done that before, yet today.

If a mod happens to see this, please fix my poor spelling of Chuck.

It's the argument that Obama gave directly to Republicans when he met with them over the stimulus package.

So, after DAYS trying to get the Grand Obstructionist Party to reach a deal on the stimulus, Obama reminds them that this kind of crap is what got them off the houses in the first place, and you try to reduce it to simply "Obama claims he won as an argument for the package".

If it were just about anyone else, I'd assume they were joking. What that says about you is up to your conclusion.

Hahaha. Enjoy, America.

So, after DAYS trying to get the Grand Obstructionist Party to reach a deal on the stimulus, Obama reminds them that this kind of crap is what got them off the houses in the first place, and you try to reduce it to simply "Obama claims he won as an argument for the package".

If it were just about anyone else, I'd assume they were joking. What that says about you is up to your conclusion.

Hey, cheer up, you won.

It's the argument that Obama gave directly to Republicans when he met with them over the stimulus package.

You'll probably just ignore this, or provide a link to an obvious right wing news/blog source, but could you provide a source for this?

Hahaha. Enjoy, America.

Still flip-flopping and attention-whoring, Tater Boy?

I really don't care, because America is stupid.

Yep, looks like it.

Don't feel so bad, you'll feel better closing your eyes and pretending that Georgie, Tony and Johnny are still in charge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw&feature=email

"Little tiny?"

Are you fraking kidding me? Talk about somebody with a severe problem grasping reality...

Something like 65% of Americans oppose pork and he says this?

Does the word 'pork' have some meaning - other than meat from pigs - that I'm not aware of?

Still flip-flopping and attention-whoring, Tater Boy?

Yep, looks like it.

We laugh at America because you won't learn anything if we don't.

Don't feel so bad, you'll feel better closing your eyes and pretending that Georgie, Tony and Johnny are still in charge.

You really just go out of your way to be wrong, don't you? You say Tony Blair every single time, and ever single time, I tell you that I HATE Tony Blair.

I will reiterate the argument posited by Obama and Pelosi.

"I won".

This means that no matter what they propose, they already believe that regardless of what any people in the US may think now, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will brook no argument (or even offer any justification other than "I won".

So sit back and enjoy.

Like when someone recently said "I earned political capital in this election and I intend to spend it? I've been given a MANDATE by the American people." Something along those lines?

Like when someone recently said "I earned political capital in this election and I intend to spend it? I've been given a MANDATE by the American people." Something along those lines?

Nope, a bit differently, actually. I mean, Bush ACTUALLY said THAT. Obama, on the other hand, pointed out that the way Republicans acted cost them the houses.

Hey, cheer up, you won.

Oh, I AM glad.

We laugh at America because you won't learn anything if we don't.

You worship someone who kissed Bush's ass on behalf of Australia and you're talking about America needing to learn a lesson? HA! Good one Tater Boy.

You really just go out of your way to be wrong, don't you? You say Tony Blair every single time, and ever single time, I tell you that I HATE Tony Blair.

He's part of the Axis of Complicity, and Georgie and Johnny seemed to get along with him terrific.

You worship someone who kissed Bush's ass on behalf of Australia and you're talking about America needing to learn a lesson? HA! Good one Tater Boy.

...

John Howard was one of the best PMs this country has ever had. Everybody's just realised that electing Rudd was a monumental fuckup.

- Taking us from surplus to deficit
- Censoring the Internet
- Banning foods that the govt. deems to be unhealthy
- Making relief for victims of the Victoria bushfires dependent on the passing of his stimulus plan

Anyway, this is off topic.

So, after DAYS trying to get the Grand Obstructionist Party to reach a deal on the stimulus, Obama reminds them that this kind of crap is what got them off the houses in the first place, and you try to reduce it to simply "Obama claims he won as an argument for the package".

If it were just about anyone else, I'd assume they were joking. What that says about you is up to your conclusion.

Precisely. He basically said that, "hey, people were given an option to choose your plan or mine. They chose mine which gives me the confidence to say that after having tried it you way I am going to change course. We tried tax cuts and more tax cuts for 8 years and it led us to where we are now. Perhaps if those tax cuts were targeted more at the middle class who spends more of their money rather than save/invest we'd be in a batter spot. Instead George W bush gave 40% of those tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. Not the comfortably wealthy types, but the type that need to find a way to spend all they have because they've run out of boats to buy." I think that's more to the point of what he said. Tax cuts and lowering interest rates can only go so far before they drive inflation through the roof. Face it, the rates are near zero and the economy shrunk more in the last quarter (3.6 motherFing points) than it has in 50 years. Those ideas have proven to fail even back to the Great Ronnie. Even he had to raise taxes a couple of years later because he went to damn far and ruined government's return. And, after 8 years of following another 8 years where the Reagan Administration said "deficits don't matter: all of the sudden the Republican party is fiscally conservative again? Fucking whining opportunists who haven't finished licking the wounds of the ass stomping they got. Maybe if more Republicans were actually fiscal conservatives like in the 50's I wouldn't be thinking of taking my name off their voter roles. I've been an R since 18 and now they are losing the war for my heart and mind.

Does the word 'pork' have some meaning - other than meat from pigs - that I'm not aware of?

Yah, "pork" is a derisive term applied to items in legislation that have nothing to do with the issue being addressed by the proposed law, for example, including funding for landscaping a park in a bill that's supposed to regulate commercial airline routes.

Having now seen the clip I agree that, apparently, people really do care about 'pork.' However, I point out that this alleged care is very partisan in use, and I agree with Schumer in principle that people really ought to focus on the bigger picture rather than minutiae. If our dollar spending is the real concern, focus on the things that take the most spending.... the alleged 'pork' does not.

This means that no matter what they propose, they already believe that regardless of what any people in the US may think now, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will brook no argument (or even offer any justification other than "I won".


Well, it also helps when the majority of America agrees with him and approves of both the democrats in congress and his own efforts.

Most also disapprove of how the Republicans are handling this.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114202/Obama-Upper-Hand-Stimulus-Fight.aspx

And most of America agrees with the stimulus package
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114184/Public-Support-Stimulus-Package-Unchanged.aspx

Hotwife, do you know what a mandate is? Its what Bush claimed to be given by 48% of the country and what Obama actually got with 53.

Hotwife, do you know what a mandate is? Its what Bush claimed to be given by 48% of the country and what Obama actually got with 53.

And only 5 months ago no less.

And only 5 months ago no less.

You know I've heard that after a particularly traumatic, negative event, one's mind can actually block out the memories that could otherwise cause permanent emotional and mental damage.

Back on topic, I sometimes wish Obama would give the Republicans the finger more often. Those pricks need a little reality check.

Back on topic, I sometimes wish Obama would give the Republicans the finger more often. Those pricks need a little reality check.

Just send them to an airport Men's bathroom in Minnesota.

Just send them to an airport Men's bathroom in Minnesota.

Hey, wide-stance syndrome is a real issue facing America!

Just send them to an airport Men's bathroom in Minnesota.

No, no: They are PRICKS who need REALITY CHECKS, not REALITY CHECKS who need PRICKS.

So, after DAYS trying to get the Grand Obstructionist Party to reach a deal on the stimulus, Obama reminds them that this kind of crap is what got them off the houses in the first place, and you try to reduce it to simply "Obama claims he won as an argument for the package".

If it were just about anyone else, I'd assume they were joking. What that says about you is up to your conclusion.
When you say, "this kind of crap", are you talking about the rampant spending proposed by the Democratic party? Spending like that is, indeed, what cost the Republicans the Congress.

As far as the argument, "I can do it because I won", well, I've said all along that elections have consequences. We didn't think this one through very well, did we?

When you say, "this kind of crap", are you talking about the rampant spending proposed by the Democratic party? Spending like that is, indeed, what cost the Republicans the Congress.

Untrue. The state of the economy combined with the war in Iraq costs the Republicans the Congress.

Spending like that is, indeed, what cost the Republicans the Congress.

evidence?

As far as the argument, "I can do it because I won",

This isn't an argument anyone is actually making.

evidence?

http://people-press.org/reports/images/368-6.gif
http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/why-did-the-republicans-lose/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/why_republicans_lost.html

This is a hilarious article: http://www.agreeley.com/articles/101306.html

As far as the argument, "I can do it because I won", well,

Well, it isn't being made. By either party. It WAS made by Bush four years ago. Look where the fuck it took you.

When you say, "this kind of crap", are you talking about the rampant spending proposed by the Democratic party? Spending like that is, indeed, what cost the Republicans the Congress.

As far as the argument, "I can do it because I won", well, I've said all along that elections have consequences. We didn't think this one through very well, did we?

No, I think we are very well aware of what we voted for. You see, spending is what the economy needs at this point. What are our biggest problems with our economy currently, outside of the banking bullshit? Consumer confidence and spending. Well, we're going to be spending. Spending is not always a bad thing. You sound like Michael Steele trying to split hairs on the difference between "work" and a "job." As VC pointed out earlier, bush claimed a mandate with 48% of the vote. Spending needs to be done because after the last 8 years of cut taxes, lower interest rates, and de-regulation we are clusterfucked beyond belief. There wouldn't be a need for all of this rampant spending if someone had done their Fing job in the first place. We looked last the last 8 years of "fiscal conservatism" and saw what it did to the country. Or do you think this problem was created by Obama in 3 weeks? The country rejected McCain's platform which means they prefer something else. I repeat "trickle down economics should be called pissing on you economics. The people at the top get the biggest rewards and piss on everyone else. Those of you below recieving the golden shower hope one day to be the pisser instead of the pissee, so you rationalize that you are in fact being pissed on." There's a reason building are built from the ground up. It's the same way you build anything that can stand the test of time.

whew-angry rant over.

No, I think we are very well aware of what we voted for. You see, spending is what the economy needs at this point. What are our biggest problems with our economy currently, outside of the banking bullshit? Consumer confidence and spending. Well, we're going to be spending. Spending is not always a bad thing. You sound like Michael Steele trying to split hairs on the difference between "work" and a "job." As VC pointed out earlier, bush claimed a mandate with 48% of the vote. Spending needs to be done because after the last 8 years of cut taxes, lower interest rates, and de-regulation we are clusterfucked beyond belief. There wouldn't be a need for all of this rampant spending if someone had done their Fing job in the first place. We looked last the last 8 years of "fiscal conservatism" and saw what it did to the country. Or do you think this problem was created by Obama in 3 weeks? The country rejected McCain's platform which means they prefer something else. I repeat "trickle down economics should be called pissing on you economics. The people at the top get the biggest rewards and piss on everyone else. Those of you below recieving the golden shower hope one day to be the pisser instead of the pissee, so you rationalize that you are in fact being pissed on." There's a reason building are built from the ground up. It's the same way you build anything that can stand the test of time.

whew-angry rant over.
There's a lot of anger and very little logic in that rant. You're forgiven, if this is personal.

You neglect the fact that Bush spent gazillions of dollars. Tax revenue DID increase from year to year, but Bush, with his accomplices in Congress, abandoned any pretense of being 'fiscal conservatives'. You also neglect the fact that the current problems with lending started in the years before Bush took office -- and since many of the laws prohibiting redlining and encouraging the lending to anyone, regardless of income, were motivated by community action groups, Obama could have had a hand in creating this economy.

Huh don't get any of this, and what has pork got to do with it?

I will reiterate the argument posited by Obama and Pelosi.

"I won".

This means that no matter what they propose, they already believe that regardless of what any people in the US may think now, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will brook no argument (or even offer any justification other than "I won".

So sit back and enjoy.

I'll enjoy it a hell of a lot more than I did in 2004, thank you.

Maybe if more Republicans were actually fiscal conservatives like in the 50's I wouldn't be thinking of taking my name off their voter roles.

If the Republicans stop labeling everyone who want's to cut $5 from the defense budget as un-American, they'll actually be able to have a serious debate on the issue of fiscal conservatism.

Until then, you're outta luck.

Yah, "pork" is a derisive term applied to items in legislation that have nothing to do with the issue being addressed by the proposed law, for example, including funding for landscaping a park in a bill that's supposed to regulate commercial airline routes.

Huh, good to know that. I was just beginning to be curious as to when did majority of Americans turn vegetarian or Jewish in a such a way that I didn't notice it. :D

Huh, good to know that. I was just beginning to be curious as to when did majority of Americans turn vegetarian or Jewish in a such a way that I didn't notice it. :D

It's part of the secret Muslim invasion. Pork isn't halal.

There's a lot of anger and very little logic in that rant. You're forgiven, if this is personal.

You neglect the fact that Bush spent gazillions of dollars.

On an unpopular war. Did we forget this little tidbit? I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to argue that it's "spending" that got the republicans kicked out. It wasn't that they were spending, it's what they were spending it on that ticked off a lot of people.

I wonder though, what is necessarily bad with the argument of "I won". I mean, isn't that sorta the idea of a democracy? The majority voted for democrat control of the house, senate, and presidency.

Doesn't that sort of indicate that the majority of americans are in favor of the democrat proposals?

I wonder though, what is necessarily bad with the argument of "I won". I mean, isn't that sorta the idea of a democracy? The majority voted for democrat control of the house, senate, and presidency.

Doesn't that sort of indicate that the majority of americans are in favor of the democrat proposals?

In general yes, but on this issue a Rasmussen poll indicated something like 63% of Americans wanted the opposite of this bill... more cuts, less spending.

On an unpopular war. Did we forget this little tidbit? I think it's disingenuous in the extreme to argue that it's "spending" that got the republicans kicked out. It wasn't that they were spending, it's what they were spending it on that ticked off a lot of people.

Well that, and a lot of the Republican base was aggravated that the republicans grew the Government more during Bush's term than had been done since the Roosevelt administration.

I will reiterate the argument posited by Obama and Pelosi.

"I won".

This means that no matter what they propose, they already believe that regardless of what any people in the US may think now, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will brook no argument (or even offer any justification other than "I won".

So sit back and enjoy.

Thats the same thing George Bush said, and Bill Clinton said, and George Bush I, said, and Ronald Reagan said and... I'm tired of listing presidents

No, I think we are very well aware of what we voted for. You see, spending is what the economy needs at this point. What are our biggest problems with our economy currently, outside of the banking bullshit? Consumer confidence and spending. Well, we're going to be spending. Spending is not always a bad thing. You sound like Michael Steele trying to split hairs on the difference between "work" and a "job." As VC pointed out earlier, bush claimed a mandate with 48% of the vote. Spending needs to be done because after the last 8 years of cut taxes, lower interest rates, and de-regulation we are clusterfucked beyond belief. There wouldn't be a need for all of this rampant spending if someone had done their Fing job in the first place. We looked last the last 8 years of "fiscal conservatism" and saw what it did to the country. Or do you think this problem was created by Obama in 3 weeks? The country rejected McCain's platform which means they prefer something else. I repeat "trickle down economics should be called pissing on you economics. The people at the top get the biggest rewards and piss on everyone else. Those of you below recieving the golden shower hope one day to be the pisser instead of the pissee, so you rationalize that you are in fact being pissed on." There's a reason building are built from the ground up. It's the same way you build anything that can stand the test of time.

whew-angry rant over.

Nice rant ;)

Actually what I want to address is what I bolded in your quote. The problem is there was nothing conservative about the way Republicans have been acting over the last 8 years. Like I said in the post before this, a lot of Republicans became disgusted with Bush because he wasn't fiscally conservative at all. He grew Government and spent money like it was going out of style.

Thats the same thing George Bush said, and Bill Clinton said, and George Bush I, said, and Ronald Reagan said and... I'm tired of listing presidents

And in fairness... Obama is opposed to this level of pork in the bill and is at odd with Nancy "where's my private airplane" Pelosi over it.

Well that, and a lot of the Republican base was aggravated that the republicans grew the Government more during Bush's term than had been done since the Roosevelt administration.

yes, but so what really? It's a myth, I think, about this whole "angering the base" thing. The base is who votes for you, that's why they're called "the base". The core republican base didn't vote democrat. They didn't even particularly stay home and not vote at all.

Sure they might have been pissed that the republicans were not "republican enough", but they still voted for them again.

It's why, in a two party system, pandering to your base moves like, say...Sarah Palin, never really work too well.

Nice rant ;)

Actually what I want to address is what I bolded in your quote. The problem is there was nothing conservative about the way Republicans have been acting over the last 8 years. Like I said in the post before this, a lot of Republicans became disgusted with Bush because he wasn't fiscally conservative at all. He grew Government and spent money like it was going out of style.

I'd point out that Bush wasn't the one writing the spending bills, he just rubber stamped them. Republicans have spent this country right into the shitter. I loathe to throw good money after bad, but at this point what can you do? I'm no economist.

Nice rant ;)

Actually what I want to address is what I bolded in your quote. The problem is there was nothing conservative about the way Republicans have been acting over the last 8 years. Like I said in the post before this, a lot of Republicans became disgusted with Bush because he wasn't fiscally conservative at all. He grew Government and spent money like it was going out of style.

typical "no true scottsman" fallacy. Conservatives voted for George W. Bush. They voted for him again in 2004. More to point and more importantly, they voted for the Congress that actually passed the budget and spending bills. There never has been an example of a "true" conservative in politics, because by and large, there's really no such thing.

And in fairness... Obama is opposed to this level of pork in the bill and is at odd with Nancy "where's my private airplane" Pelosi over it.

I was just tell DK to get a better argument.

In general yes, but on this issue a Rasmussen poll indicated something like 63% of Americans wanted the opposite of this bill... more cuts, less spending.

Really? because right now on Gallup it's saying that Obama's approval rating on the particular matter of the stimulus package is twice that of congressional republicans.

In general yes, but on this issue a Rasmussen poll indicated something like 63% of Americans wanted the opposite of this bill... more cuts, less spending.
there is no sense tailoring a stimulus bill to the will of the american people as expressed in an opinion poll if it is not going to do what it is intended to do.

it would be far better to drop the whole idea if it has no chance to work.

typical "no true scottsman" fallacy. Conservatives voted for George W. Bush. They voted for him again in 2004. More to point and more importantly, they voted for the Congress that actually passed the budget and spending bills. There never has been an example of a "true" conservative in politics, because by and large, there's really no such thing.

It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy in that all I'm saying is Bush failed to perform according to expectations. Whether there really is such a thing as a true fiscal conservative is beside the point because in this case he was unusually bad at it.

What Conservatives WANT is leaders who will shrink Government. What they wind up settling for is leaders who just grow Government more slowly, and what they got with Bush was a guy who actively sought more Government and to hell with anybody who didn't like it.

Kerry's problem in '04 as that he failed to convince enough voters that he'd be any better. It's not that people went "YAY! more Bush!" it was that they looked at Kerry and went "really...?"

I wonder though, what is necessarily bad with the argument of "I won". I mean, isn't that sorta the idea of a democracy? The majority voted for democrat control of the house, senate, and presidency.

Doesn't that sort of indicate that the majority of americans are in favor of the democrat proposals?
America is a democratic republic. Thus, when the Republicans are in charge, it is a democracy, and the Democrats ought to understand that government ought to bend to the will of the people. Bonus points if you can rig an election and claim the will of the people. When the Republicans are in opposition, America is a republic, and ought to govern in the interests of the people by listening to the Republicans.;)

There's a lot of anger and very little logic in that rant. You're forgiven, if this is personal.

You neglect the fact that Bush spent gazillions of dollars. Tax revenue DID increase from year to year, but Bush, with his accomplices in Congress, abandoned any pretense of being 'fiscal conservatives'. You also neglect the fact that the current problems with lending started in the years before Bush took office -- and since many of the laws prohibiting redlining and encouraging the lending to anyone, regardless of income, were motivated by community action groups, Obama could have had a hand in creating this economy.

Where did Bush spend gazillions of dollars? Was it anywhere that would actually have a positive impact on jobs and income? I already know the answer to these questions. Spending on defense and blanket tax cuts for the wealthy are not ways to promote overall economic health. Your attempt to scapegoat organizations like ACORN is clear here. You make baseless conjecture about Obama being a community organizer just trying to throw the pasta against the wall and see if it sticks. You have no real basis for your assumption so I redirect to you on the lack of logic. Further, the law which you refer to were put into place in 1998. While Clinton was President, both houses of congress were controlled by Republicans with veto proof majorities. They are the ones who put these policies in place and Clinton's veto would have been futile. They are the ones who pushed for de-regulation for the past 10 years. Not to mention we were all so worried about a blue dress at that time. You are also exaggerating the "lending to anyone" line. Requirements were reduced to allow more people to own homes. The problem is not so much that a working class person was able to buy a modest 2 bedroom home, it was that a middle class person was able to buy a 5 bed 4 bath home when they truly could afford a small ranch. Those are the people you are seeing more of in foreclosures. Those who could afford a 250k house who bought a 550k house. If you have some information regarding how Obama and community organizers were primarily responsible for ruining the economy I'd like to see. If you have information that Bush spent money in the appropriate places then please provide that as well.

Nice rant ;)

Actually what I want to address is what I bolded in your quote. The problem is there was nothing conservative about the way Republicans have been acting over the last 8 years. Like I said in the post before this, a lot of Republicans became disgusted with Bush because he wasn't fiscally conservative at all. He grew Government and spent money like it was going out of style.

Exactly. I agree 100% with that you said. I was being sarcastic as Bush was not a fiscal conservative, and he did not play to the Republican Party's greater ideals. He was a radical doing things his own way. Many of the congressional republican "fiscal conservatives" who are opening their mouth now were so eager to spend spend spend the past 8 years. I guess my point was that they were, and still are, full of shit.

Yah, "pork" is a derisive term applied to items in legislation that have nothing to do with the issue being addressed by the proposed law, for example, including funding for landscaping a park in a bill that's supposed to regulate commercial airline routes.

As the local self-appointed pedant I want to point out that that's not exactly right -- pork (short for pork-barrel spending or pork-barrel politics) is legislation creating a benefit for a small constituency and a cost borne by everyone. It's not necessarily a rider irrelevant to a larger bill; it may, in fact, be the entire purpose of a large bill (like the farm bills or the transportation bills.)

Proponents of any given item will invariably argue that said item has a general benefit, and opponents of said item will scream "pork!" and consider the argument won.

In general yes, but on this issue a Rasmussen poll indicated something like 63% of Americans wanted the opposite of this bill... more cuts, less spending.

Lets pretend for a moment that I trus Rasmussen...source? Because all the polls Ive seen show the opposite.

Yah, "pork" is a derisive term applied to items in legislation that have nothing to do with the issue being addressed by the proposed law, for example, including funding for landscaping a park in a bill that's supposed to regulate commercial airline routes.

That's not what "pork" is. Something tacked on to a bill, which doesn't relate to the overall purpose of the bill, is typically called a "rider".

"pork" is generally something that only benefits a local, or regional group. For example, funding for a SPECIFIC part in a SPECIFIC area might be considered "pork". Pork is also not necessarily a BAD thing. Congress members are, after all, elected to represent their districts, and getting benefits for their districts is one of the things they're SUPPOSED to do.

"Pork" means money money for projects that really only affect a local constituency, not a national one. What you're describing is a rider.

"Pork" means money money for projects that really only affect a local constituency, not a national one. What you're describing is a rider.

Not all riders are pork, but pork is always attached as a rider. Sometimes, riders attached to important bills are the only way a given piece of minor but potentially significant legislation has any chance of passing (for better or for worse).

Hah! I pre-pedanted all y'all!

Lets pretend for a moment that I trus Rasmussen...source? Because all the polls Ive seen show the opposite.

"Give me a source I have already decided not to believe?"

Come on, man!

Not all riders are pork, but pork is always attached as a rider. Sometimes, riders attached to important bills are the only way a given piece of minor but potentially significant legislation has any chance of passing (for better or for worse).

And some people like to ride the pork, and that's just nasty.

"Give me a source I have already decided not to believe?"

Come on, man!

Fine. Give me a source and Ill see if I believe it, because everything else Ive seen shows that most of America agreed with the stimulus proposed by the Dems.


So neener neener:p

Fine. Give me a source and Ill see if I believe it, because everything else Ive seen shows that most of America agreed with the stimulus proposed by the Dems.


So neener neener:p

I'd rather play Warhammer...

But lest I be accused of dodging:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/february_2009/toplines_stimulus_package_february_6_7_2009

In general yes, but on this issue a Rasmussen poll indicated something like 63% of Americans wanted the opposite of this bill... more cuts, less spending.

Lets pretend for a moment that I trus Rasmussen...source? Because all the polls Ive seen show the opposite.

First of all, Rasmussen is generally viewed as a more conservative polling source. I go to Pew for all of my polls, they are definitely the most trusted. Here's some sources from Rasmussen as well as Pew, PollingReport.com, and Gallup.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/48_say_increased_government_spending_hurts_economy
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/67_say_they_could_do_a_better_job_on_the_economy_than_congress
http://people-press.org/report/490/obama-stimulus
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1455
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx

It is not a good idea (in fact, its just plain incorrect) to only reference to a single source when you're talking about polling data. Every pollster has his own methods, and there are so many different ways of interpreting the same data that its silly to only use one source to justify your argument.

Weren't Rasmussen the ones who had McCain in a 1% lead before the elections?

I'd rather play Warhammer...

Thats tomorrow night for me. Against dwarves. Gotta figure out how Im gonna deal with all those guns with my Beasts of Chaos.


But lest I be accused of dodging:

Psh:p


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/february_2009/toplines_stimulus_package_february_6_7_2009

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx

Id imagine, in reality, American support is somewhere around 50% if we figure the difference in polling sources.

But, Id argue claiming that "67% of Americans want more tax cuts in the stimulus" is not 100% accurate.